Open Source Movement vs. Free Software

[ZenCartEasyHelp]

Great video! Set up your ecommerce business for free with our Easy Help Zen Cart Tutorials:

[noumman]

are open source softwares free for commercial use as well, i.e if i use them for my company's computer?

[cheetah100]

@noumman Short answer is yes. You are free to use open source in business, and you don't have to pay for software licenses. However there is still support and training which you need to think about - exactly the same as with commercial software.

[afarnen]

Is that the only argument that the open source movement has? Because the word "free" in english also has one definition of meaning "gratis". Boohoo. The open source movement is hypocritical, and no they DON'T believe in the same freedoms. Why do you think there's Microsoft ads on soureforge, and advertisements for other proprietary software in "open source" magazines.

[cheetah100]

RMS should stop misrepresenting open source. We believe in the importance of freedoms in exactly the same way, we just have a problem with the arrogance of RMS trying to redefine english. I have seen no compelling difference between open and free software.

[schestowitz]

These are very different concepts. Freedom is not the same as openness. You can abuse someone openly.

[cheetah100]

Exactly. The thing is that software itself can have no intent - thus cannot be 'free' in the sense that a person is 'free'. Software can be free (as in no cost), and open source.

The "freedom" RMS talks about is the freedom of developers to use software. Thus Open Source = Free Developers.

[anfenn]

The freedom that RMS talks about is the freedom to privately change, use, give away and improve the program.

The four freedoms ensure that the program will always be freely available to the user to do what they want with it.

[GranitW]

from what FSF says, Freeware can still be proprietary, but is free to use. Opensource means that the software is free, but the source code is as well, and you can distribute or use Opensource software in anyway you want as long as you put the credits in the right places. Freeware can be more strict on usage.

[someman7]

No! Free software (with a capital F) is NOT freeware. It doesn't mean a program is free, in fact, distribution can cost you (I think). Free software is a term coined by Richard Stallman, and as the vid says, Open Source is just the name to present it to buisness men. But the thing is, OS movement, and FSF have different agendas. The difference being that FSF also focuses on the community (it fights DRM, for example), while OS movement cares (only) for the economical advantages of FOSS.

[GranitW]

A word is nothing more than what one sees it to be.

[cheetah100]

I am Peter Harrison, founder of the NZOSS. I personally represented the society before Parliament in NZ to fight against DRM legislation. I have personally spent thousands defending freedom. As such I am deeply offended in the suggestion that the OS movement cares only for the economic advantages.

[someman7]

Hmm...

You just messed up the whole thing up again, I'm confused :-/

I give up, you explain it.

P.S. The question is how to define OS movement vs the definition of FS movement.

[JonJahren]

@cheetah100 Be that as it may, there's still the problem that focusing on "open source" has left us with a variety of open source licenses where the code isn't free. You can have non-free open source, but you can't have non-open source free software. I think this is a good example where sticking to your guns would have made advancement slower, but ultimately would've matched their agenda more accurately.

[cheetah100]

@JonJahren Interesting accusation, but lacking in detail. What OSI approved license are we talking about? The whole Free vs Open discussion is really a misunderstanding. Open Source == Free People. Having the source code to software openly available gives YOU freedom to use, distribute, copy and modify. The software itself is not the object of the emancipation.

[JonJahren]

@cheetah100 I never claimed OSI has approved any non-free OSS license. I'm just saying they exist. I'm going to say this again: You can claim to be open source, and still not be free software. This isn't wrong or incorrect, it's a fact. Just because OSI might not approve your license doesn't mean it's not 'open source'. If you want an example though: APSL1.

[JonJahren]

@GranitW Not quite right.. Open Source does not have to be free software, because of copyright I can show you the code but not permit you to redistribute it or redistribute changes. That's a core difference between open source and free software.

[cheetah100]

@JonJahren Open Source as defined by the creators of the term at OSI developed a precise definition that requires the same freedoms as the Free Software Foundation. You may object to the use of the term "Open Source", but please don't try to change the meaning of the term.

[JonJahren]

@cheetah100 If I release my software under an open source but restrictive license, does the OSI have the authority to force me to not call my software open source?